The time it would take to share the sides of the issue that immediately pops to mind is unavailable to me. In fact, the thought of writing about it makes me sure that it would change the way my fellow writers view me. When I think about the topic, I feel both irate and exhausted.
I know that I have studied, listened to other experts, have extensive hands-on experience in my field, worked with communities in developing plans AND remained curious. I believe in balancing environmental and social factors, current science, and recognizing the context of an extremely altered urban environment that is also experiencing pressures from climate change. I also don’t think that the answer has to be an us vs. them scenario. I think those on the opposing sides have more in common than not, and that it hurts all of us to be fighting amongst ourselves.
Yet it is the topic that has brought me closest to quitting my job, as there are so many other issues that are bigger threats and are more important to my overall success in my role, but this is the one that, in gaining momentum, undermines and distracts my work and threatens to hurt my reputation. I am an expert and I want to be of service.
Those on the other side of the issue do not believe there is a middle ground worth finding. They are right and believe that even fundamental morality is on their side. They frequently have entertained the topic from a philosophical standpoint, with limited or no field experience. No understanding that in implementation, practitioners have to work in complex shades of gray with a variety of factors involved in determining how a project develops.
One of the biggest advocates on the other side extended an olive branch, a desire to dialogue. We met, got to know each other’s history and background better, and discussed many of the issues we agree are problematic. As the conversation finally quieted and we found ourselves approaching this area where we disagree, we both started to laugh. It wasn’t even worth discussing. We knew that we both thought the other was a stubborn idiot that was totally wrong. I did not waste my breath sharing the available science, my field experience, and the logistical challenges and erroneous assumptions of what he was promoting.
I did share that I thought being at odds hurt our overall cause, and he said, “One military strategy is that in order to win the larger war, you have to unify the army behind a common idea or vision. I first have to attack and eliminate the other competing ideas.” And there it is. I am about building coalitions, finding common ground and compromise, but unwilling to agree to ideas that I think may be unwise, hurtful, and/or wasteful. He is sure he is in the right and is coming for me. “It isn't personal,” he says. It may not be, but it is exhausting to try and hold back the tide of their fundamentalism while those that are involved with the bigger problems try to sneak behind me or stab me in the back.
— slowjamr
I know that I have studied, listened to other experts, have extensive hands-on experience in my field, worked with communities in developing plans AND remained curious. I believe in balancing environmental and social factors, current science, and recognizing the context of an extremely altered urban environment that is also experiencing pressures from climate change. I also don’t think that the answer has to be an us vs. them scenario. I think those on the opposing sides have more in common than not, and that it hurts all of us to be fighting amongst ourselves.
Yet it is the topic that has brought me closest to quitting my job, as there are so many other issues that are bigger threats and are more important to my overall success in my role, but this is the one that, in gaining momentum, undermines and distracts my work and threatens to hurt my reputation. I am an expert and I want to be of service.
Those on the other side of the issue do not believe there is a middle ground worth finding. They are right and believe that even fundamental morality is on their side. They frequently have entertained the topic from a philosophical standpoint, with limited or no field experience. No understanding that in implementation, practitioners have to work in complex shades of gray with a variety of factors involved in determining how a project develops.
One of the biggest advocates on the other side extended an olive branch, a desire to dialogue. We met, got to know each other’s history and background better, and discussed many of the issues we agree are problematic. As the conversation finally quieted and we found ourselves approaching this area where we disagree, we both started to laugh. It wasn’t even worth discussing. We knew that we both thought the other was a stubborn idiot that was totally wrong. I did not waste my breath sharing the available science, my field experience, and the logistical challenges and erroneous assumptions of what he was promoting.
I did share that I thought being at odds hurt our overall cause, and he said, “One military strategy is that in order to win the larger war, you have to unify the army behind a common idea or vision. I first have to attack and eliminate the other competing ideas.” And there it is. I am about building coalitions, finding common ground and compromise, but unwilling to agree to ideas that I think may be unwise, hurtful, and/or wasteful. He is sure he is in the right and is coming for me. “It isn't personal,” he says. It may not be, but it is exhausting to try and hold back the tide of their fundamentalism while those that are involved with the bigger problems try to sneak behind me or stab me in the back.
— slowjamr
Wow. This is a marvelous piece. Thank you so much for sharing.
ReplyDeleteYes, it is marvelous. You express so much kindness and openness on the foundation of your expertise which includes field work. Since this touches and concerns your work life, I'm not surprised you feel irate and exhausted. Long ago - 40 years or so - I thought in the same vein you express that the Sierra Club et al. and energy and corporate interests and government decision-makers should figure out a way to sit down and problem-solve. We were never going to preserve all the forests, rivers, wetlands, and features of nature. Neither could we tolerate unbridled mining, logging and clearing forests for cultivation, and other giant footprints of "not nature" to pound on the earth. And yet here we are. Corporate interests have held sway with some successes for naturalists holding at bay complete dominance by greed. I am not an expert but I have paid some attention and I think that the effort at communication that you describe has never happened and now we're dealing with not just differences of perspectives of the problems and possible solutions. We are increasingly entrenched in horriblizing the other side. Heart sick here. Thank you for writing this difficult story.
ReplyDeleteI must need specifics, because I did not understand what the "issue" actually was. You seemed to be talking (beautifully) around it, and saying a lot about humans in general. I also cannot tell exactly what your work IS. I'm amazed that Marmar seems to have figured it out. Maybe. (Macoff)
ReplyDeleteDetails of slowjamr's work are not relevant in my reading. We are given the information we need to appreciate slowjamr's difficulties.
Delete